Re: Changing fink-obsolete-packages to RuntimeDepends
Max Horn <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.apple.fink.core |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 28.03.2012 um 17:39 schrieb Daniel Macks: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:15:43 +0200, Max Horn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would like to suggest to all package authors using >> Depends: fink-obsolete-packages >> in an obsolete splitoff, that they switch to >> Depends: fink (>= 0.32) >> RuntimeDepends: fink-obsolete-packages >> instead. This way, building the non-obsolete package does not cause >> fink-obsolete-packages to be installed even though you don't use any >> obsolete splitoffs. >> >> Example: My package "wireshark" has an obsolete splitoff >> "wireshark-ssl". In previous versions, whenever you updated >> wireshark, it would also install fink-obsolete-packages, even though >> wireshark itself is not obsolete. >> >> In the new 1.6.6-1 release, I performed the change described above. >> Now, updating wireshark does not cause fink-obsolete-packages to be >> installed. Only trying to install or update the obsolete >> wireshark-ssl splitoff will do that. >> >> >> Any objections to me proposing that to a wider audience on fink-devel? > > Great idea! Please add notes to the fink-obsolete-packages DescUsage > and maybe also the associated wiki page (Homepage for the f-o-p > package). Will do. > > As I understand it, the .info RuntimeDepends is translated into a > Depends entry during the build process, so it would only need to be > > BuildDepends: fink (>= 0.32) > > rather than Depends because there's no new feature needed at runtime. Absolutely right! I'll clarify that ASAP. > That's consistent with the validator test as well--when I don't have > that, I get > > Error: use of RuntimeDepends requires declaring a BuildDepends on > fink (>= 0.31.99.git) or higher. > > That should probably be adjusted to 0.32 instead of the weird (to > normal users:) .99.git prerelease versioning. Indeed, it should, and I am confused because I thought we had done just that... Must have dreamed that. Or maybe it got lost in some merge.... *sigh*. One more thing: I believe it is safe to make those changes without a revision change: The resulting binary won't be changed, after all; only during build time is there a minor difference, namely whether f-o-p gets installed or not. If people concur, I'll document it like that. Cheers, Max ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ fink-core mailing list [email protected] List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.core Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-core